G.R. No. 235586 , January 22, 2020
Spouses Mila Yap-Sumndad and Atty. Daligdig Sumndad, Datu Yap Sumndad, Joel Gelito, and John Does, Petitioners, vs. Friday’s Holdings, Inc., represented herein by its Director Mario B. Badiola, Respondent.

FACTS

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Court of Appeals’ (CA) Resolution dated October 30, 2017, which denied the petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration of the CA Resolution dated May 15, 2017. The case originated from a forcible entry suit filed by the respondent, Friday’s Holdings, Inc., which was decided in its favor by the 5th Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Buruanga-Malay on April 24, 2015. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MCTC decision with modification on September 5, 2016. The petitioners filed a Petition for Review with the CA on March 7, 2017. The CA dismissed the petition via a Resolution dated May 15, 2017, citing multiple procedural infirmities, including: failure to file a Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping; failure to indicate material dates; failure to pay lawful fees for the prayer for injunctive relief; failure to attach copies of all relevant pleadings; missing page 13 of the MCTC decision; lack of competent evidence of identity for a petitioner in the verification; and defects in the Notarial Certificate. The petitioners’ counsel received a copy of this CA dismissal resolution on May 29, 2017, but due to the law firm secretary’s inadvertence, it was not reported to the handling counsel until June 19, 2017. The petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration on July 3, 2017, which the CA denied on October 30, 2017 for being filed beyond the reglementary period.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration for belated filing.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the Petition and AFFIRMED the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals. The CA did not err in denying the motion for reconsideration for belated filing. The petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration of the CA Resolution dated May 15, 2017 was filed 20 days beyond the fifteen-day reglementary period. Counsel received the resolution on May 29, 2017, making the deadline June 13, 2017, but filed only on July 3, 2017. The negligence of the counsel’s secretary in failing to promptly report the receipt of the resolution is imputable to the counsel. The Court emphasized that procedural rules cannot be lightly set aside, and the relaxation of such rules is the exception, not the rule. The petitioners’ invocation of “substantial justice” did not justify suspending the procedural rules. Consequently, the CA Resolution dated May 15, 2017 became final and executory, foreclosing the petitioners’ right to seek reconsideration or to assail the CA resolutions before the Supreme Court.